Are Muslims Allowed to Uprise Against a Non Muslim Leader Like in Syria?

I have already answered this somewhere in some comments or posts on my Facebook. Anyway, you used the words ‘uprising against a kafir leader’ – Having a non Muslim leader is unacceptable for Muslims, it is not allowed in the shariah for a non Muslim to be in authority over Muslims. However how do we remove or change the situation is the question that really should be asked and not are we allowed. We are allowed as long as we are able to fulfill the conditions of removing him.

Firstly, we need to establish why are we uprising or rebelling is it because we have no jobs? We have little food? We are being treated unjustly? Or is it because we want Allah law sharia to judge us and be implemented in our lands. If it is the former then the uprising will be fruitless, we may achieve some of our goals but gain terrible other problems in the process and the end will be one tyrannical rule for another. If it is the latter then we know we will achieve our goals and the end will be safety and peace and happiness.

Secondly, if we have the correct intention and reason to upraise we need to examine the citizens, and people who are uprising are they people who love zina, wine drinking, commit shirk worship graves and awliyaa, engrossed in bidda and deviation, defenders and callers of democracy, socialism, liberals or women’s rights. If it transpires the citizens are mainly of the above then the uprising and removing of this disbelieving leader will not bring about the desired outcome as mentioned in point one above. We should concentrate on dawah fixing the people beliefs, religion and uprightness. If it transpires the citizens are none or very little of the above then we have completed one of the pre requisites of removing a disbelieving leader.

Thirdly, if we have fulfilled the two conditions above we need to look for a third and that is will greater harm come to the Muslims if we remove this disbelieving leader? Greater harm according to the salaf is one handful of Muslim blood being spilled. When Ibn Umar was asked by some companions and tabeein to take the pledge of allegiance and fight Yazeed he refused saying “I do not want one handful of blood spilled on my account” Muslim blood is more sacred than the kaba Ibnu Maaja narrates from Abdullah ibnu ‘Umar who said; “I saw he messenger of Allah (s) by the Ka’aba saying: “how good you and your scent are, how great you, and your sanctuary is. By he whose hand my soul is in, the violation of a believers rights is greater in the sight of Allah than yours, (from his rights are) his wealth his blood and that you do not think of him except in a good light.” Ibn Masood narrates that the messenger (s) said: “the first to face trial amongst the people will be those who spilled blood.” (Bukhari and Muslim). So we need to establish which is greater the spilling of a Muslim blood or the injustice we face from this disbelieving ruler. If it transpires we can remove him without the spilling of blood then we need to fulfill another condition.

Fourthly, if the above three conditions are met we then need to establish do we have a replacement for this disbelieving leader? Are we united upon this new leader or are we going to fight each other afterwards spilling blood because each group wants his leader to rule. If we do not have a replacement in place who is pious, will judge by shariah, everyone is united upon him, we have opened ourselves to possible further disunity and killings. If we say we will have democratic elections and decide….. then do I need to say anymore? If we say it doesn’t matter just remove this one and we will put our trust in Allah then this is not correct as Allah has ordered us to take our precautions and be wise.

As for the current situation in Syria it is different now from when it was at the beginning. All the above I mentioned was applicable at the beginning, but when the situation changed to millions being displaced, losing their homes and their families being killed and raped and a civil war between sunni and shia. In such a situation these Syrian people have no choice but to fight back and remove this tyrant and disbeliever, we can only hope and pray Allah gives them victory and someone better than Bashar. This is now a jihad and no longer a rebellion or uprising.

9 thoughts on “Are Muslims Allowed to Uprise Against a Non Muslim Leader Like in Syria?”

I have read the About section of your page and understand what you are trying to do and understand you are against extremism, I pose a question to you, could your post not be misinterpreted? What if you take out the word Syria and put the UK there instead, and then you can slightly see the way that extremists can so very easily stray from the path of being a good muslim? For as you say in your first paragraph, ‘having a non-muslim leader is unacceptable for muslims’ that’s a pretty bold statement in itself. As someone who is opposed to extremist islamists, seems like you are doing a good job of advocating a strong narrative of it? This is not in any way an attack as like i’ve said before i’ve read your page first, I just want understand why you would write something like that?

Thank you for your point you raised, I stand by my words ‘having a non Muslim leader is unacceptable for a Muslim’ however, this is referring to a Muslim country where the norm is that a Muslim leads them.

As for the non Muslim countries like the UK the matter is entirely different. The norm is that a non -Muslim would lead it, though I think its constitution says otherwise. I naturally assume one who agrees with its systems of secularism and democracy etc. will be one who leads it.

Muslims have not lived under non Muslim rule before the fall of the Ottoman empire except in a few isolated cases. But since then there has been a huge change in the geography of the world. Now many Muslims make up part of the non Muslim countries and contribute to their economic, social and political success. Muslims have become citizens of such non Muslim countries.

So based on the above, contemporary scholars of Islam have issued special rulings for such Muslims living amongst a non Muslim majority. From these rulings are that they are allowed to reside in such lands where there is a non Muslim leader as long as they are able to practice their religion. In the time of our prophet Mohammed he sent a group of his companions to live in Abyssinia under a Christian kings leadership.

So if it is allowed for Muslims to live under the rule of non Muslims in countries like the UK then by default rebellion and revolt against them is not allowed in Islam.

Gunnerlukey, I see your point, however only a person who lost his mind is able to misinterpret or misrepresent this article. This article is about Syria and as you know in Syria Majority population are Muslims, therefore it is logical to have a Muslim ruler representing their interests. I would further say a ruler should be chosen amongst them a Syrian, who understands their culture, language, habits and traditions. It would be extremism and illogical to state otherwise.
Likewise majority people in England are the English, so an English man rules, this is logical, sensible to state otherwise is extreme.

It is not permissible for Muslims from the west to go and fight fee sabeel Allah in Syria for the following reasos.

1. There is no notice whatsoever affirming that the Syrians need muslims from so afar to help them rather there is clear information from scholars affirming the opposite.
2. Muslims are urged to help them through humanitarian aid be that wealth, food medicine etc etc.
3 living in the UK it is still unclear as to wether this government allows Muslims to take part in the jihad in Syria if there was a need. There have been incidents where some brothers have been accused of aiding terrorist activities in Syria and they are facing trial now. Muslims should not unnecessarily put themselves in such danger.
4. Muslims must abide by their agreements in this country if the country does not allow us to partake in fighting there we must abide by this law as it does not oppose the shariah.
5. There is much work for jihad one can do in this country j mean by this Dawah the intellectual jihad which is permitted in this country. I view this as an obligation upon those who have the ability so to leave an obligatory jihad for one which is not obligatory is not permissible in Islam.
6. There are prescribed groups in Syria which we must avoid due to the well known extremism they preach if one was to go to Syria there is a high chance he may become involved with them knowingly or unknowingly. This is wrong in Islam and also may pollute out youths thinking and they may be in danger themselves of taking on extremist thoughts then come back to the Uk and harm the innocent.

This is all I can recall right now and perhaps will write more later

May Allah give victory to the Syrians against their tyrannical leader and evil Shia partners.

Please, could you give me evidences from the ulamas of the salafiyah for it?

I’d like to share with other sisters and of course they will ask from with I base my opinion of.

Brother,the matter became very important in the current situation.It happened very recently that one of our youth (under 30) in our community went to fight in syria and died last week there.We giave her mum all our support and condolenzes as any other mother would do.We heard in the gathering many times that he for sure died as a martyr.But for me,it was very concerned and wondering if the action this young brother took was right in Islam or not.As can be puss other ones to do the same.

Regarding the young brother who was killed in Syria we hope he is shaheed in sha Allah. I am sure this was a good end for him. He will be raised according to his intention and if his intention was good and he sis not corrupt his actions in any way then in sha Allah he will be with those believers in paradise.